A
Anonymous10/12/25, 04:50No.4474207
hey /p/rotogs, how do you think this photo was taken?
it dates from 2010, but based on the debris and vignette it was shot on film - so I'm thinking a monopod is more likely than a drone
I also just think this is a really cool image and captures the vibe perfectly
23
Replies
A
Anon10/12/25, 05:49No.4474219
>vignette
That's a polariser at play anon.
>Debris
Those are birds anon.I'm not discounting it probably wasn't a drone, but it's more likely a cheap compact digishit with a tall monopod at the extreme wide focal length.
A
Anon10/13/25, 04:09No.4474426
Okay okay. Holy shit, I put a word in my post when I didn't intentionally mean to. My god.
I was wrong anyway because that kind of polarisation effect on the sky wouldn't be possible (or it would be far less pronounced) at 35mm. This is clearly 16-24mm territory which isn't proving it isn't a digitshit, but DOES mean that it IS an UWA shot.I'm also rethinking and there's nothing saying there couldn't be a shack or pier where the shot is taking place that we just aren't seeing; photography is the practice of inclusion and omission, and it could simply be they framed things to keep the structure out of shot. There *could* also be a fucking burger king behind the camera.
A
Anon10/13/25, 09:47No.4474467
It's very likely to be Velvia (purple clouds, no dynamic range).
This guy
A
Anon10/14/25, 07:17No.4474662
So, I did some digging, found who I believe to be the photographer, and sent him an Email. I'll reply with an update if he emails me back.